Last Updated on March 23, 2023 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers and participants of public assemblies.
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KUDRYASHOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 2606/12 and 29 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 March 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kudryashova and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lətif Hüseynov, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 March 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers and participants of public assemblies. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers and participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offence. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 11
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.”
7. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, ECHR 2006‑XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova, no. 33482/06, 31 March 2009).
8. In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.
12. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 61-65, 13 February 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to administrative escorting to and detention in a police station beyond three hours without any justification; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, related to the absence of a prosecuting party in criminal proceedings governed by the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”); Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 179-91, 10 April 2018, and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, regarding the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
13. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
14. The Court firstly notes that, in view of its findings in paragraphs 10 and 12 above, it considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints raised by some applicants under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative‑offence proceedings.
15. The Court has further examined the rest of the complaints raised by the applicants and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
16. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
17. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
18. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 March 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov
Acting Deputy Registrar President
___________
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention
(restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events)
| No. | Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth |
Representative’s name and location | Name of the public event
Location Date |
Administrative charges | Penalty | Final domestic decision | Other complaints under
well-established case-law |
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[i] |
| 1. | 2606/12
21/12/2011 |
Nadezhda Nikolayevna KUDRYASHOVA
1957 |
Picket in defence of children’s rights
Barnaul 16/03/2011 |
Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 1,000 | Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Barnaul
23/06/2011 |
3,500 | ||
| 2. | 58416/12
16/08/2012 |
Nikolay Nikolayevich DIDYUK
1956 Mikhail Mikhaylovich STETSENKO 1990
|
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou |
Picket near the regional prosecutor’s office
18/10/2011 (Mr Didyuk) 20/10/2011 (Mr Stetsenko) |
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO |
administrative fine of RUB 500
administrative fine of RUB 500
|
Syktyvkar Town Court
16/02/2012 Syktyvkar Town Court 20/02/2012 |
3,500 | |
| 3. | 60753/12
03/09/2012 |
Oleg Vasilyevich SHEIN
1972 |
March in defence of human rights
Astrakhan 12/06/2012 |
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 20,000 | Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan 18/07/2012 | 3,500 | ||
| 4. | 35006/13
20/05/2013 |
Kseniya Vladimirovna ZHIKHAREVA
1983 |
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow |
Picket in support of Belorussian photographers
Moscow 05/12/2012 |
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 10,000 | Basmannyy District Court of Moscow 11/03/2013 | 3,500 | |
| 5. | 35026/13
20/05/2013 |
Fedor Andreyevich YEZEYEV
1977 |
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow |
Opposition manifestation
Moscow 15/12/2012 |
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 10,000 | Moscow Regional Court
14/03/2013 |
3,500 | |
| 6. | 35037/13
26/04/2013 |
Aleksandr Viktorovich SAMSONOV
1988 |
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow |
Picket in support of prisoners’ rights
Samara 30/10/2012 |
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 10,000 | Promyshlennyy District Court of Samara
15/01/2013 |
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2§ 5 of CAO | 3,500 |
| 7. | 68982/14
10/10/2014 |
Sergey Vladimirovich SOROKIN
1958 |
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou |
Manifestation against the annexation of Crimea
Syktyvkar 16/03/2014 |
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 10,000 | Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 04/06/2014 | Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | 3,500 |
| 8. | 23054/17
16/03/2017 |
Tatyana Aleksandrovna MIKHAYLOVA
1954 |
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi |
Spontaneous assembly against violation of environmental legislation
Moscow 14/06/2016 |
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 1,000 | Moscow City Court 14/11/2016
|
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO;
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrest and detention of the applicant at the police station on 14/06/2016 between 1.30 p.m. and 5 p.m. |
4,000 |
| 9. | 39263/17
26/05/2017 |
Aleksey Viktorovich TABALOV
1976 |
Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan |
Demonstration against corruption
Chelyabinsk 26/03/2017 |
Article 20.2 § 3 of CAO | administrative detention of 10 days | Chelyabinsk Regional Court 11/04/2017 | Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 3 of CAO;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. |
5,000 |
| 10. | 40037/17
25/05/2017 |
Sergey Trofimovich MARYIN
1955 |
Navalnyy Aleksey Anatolyevich
Melekhovo |
Demonstration against corruption
Saransk 26/03/2017 |
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 20,000 | Supreme Court of the Mordovia Republic 02/05/2017 | Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention from 4.05 p.m. on 26/03/2017 to 8.30 a.m. on 27/03/2017 with no justification; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO. |
5,000 |
| 11. | 54016/17
17/07/2017 |
Ilyas Rashadovich ABBASOV
1994 |
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow |
Demonstration against corruption
Volgograd 26/03/2017 |
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 10,000 | Volgograd Regional Court
25/04/2017 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – arrest and escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention from 4 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. with no justification; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. |
4,000 |
| 12. | 63765/17
18/08/2017 |
Muradin Murdinovich ZHANE
1993 |
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi |
Demonstration against corruption
Krasnodar 26/03/2017 |
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO | administrative detention of 10 days | Krasnodar Regional Court
06/04/2017 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrest and escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 at 3.10 p.m. for the purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record;
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO; Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the first-instance court was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. |
5,000 |
| 13. | 63817/17
18/08/2017 |
Dmitriy Vasilyevich KRUCHENYUK
1998 |
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi |
Demonstration against corruption
Krasnodar 26/03/2017 |
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO | administrative detention of 10 days | Krasnodar Regional Court
07/04/2017 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – arrest and escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention from 4.40 p.m. to 8.40 p.m. with no justification; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO; Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the first-instance court was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. |
5,000 |
| 14. | 70000/17
07/09/2017
and
62596/19 19/11/2019 |
Timofey Borisovich FILATOV
1989 |
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich Yekaterinburg |
Demonstration against corruption
Magnitogorsk 26/03/2017
Manifestation against construction of the cathedral Yekaterinburg 16/05/2019 |
Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO |
community service of
24 hours
administrative detention of 15 days |
Chelyabinsk Regional Court 28/06/2017
Sverdlovsk Regional Court 21/05/2019 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrest and escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record;
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings: under Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO and Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO; Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the first-instance court on 16/05/2019 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. |
5,000 |
| 15. | 70385/17
07/09/2017 |
Artur Aleksandrovich DAVYDENKO
1992 |
Navalnyy Aleksey Anatolyevich
Melekhovo |
Demonstration against corruption
Volgograd 26/03/2017 |
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 10,000 | Volgograd Regional Court 28/04/2017 | Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – arrest and escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention from 4.40 p.m. to 8.40 p.m. with no justification; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. |
4,000 |
| 16. | 70392/17
07/09/2017 |
Nikita Vladimirovich STASYUK
1998 |
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow |
Demonstration against corruption
Vladivostok 26/03/2017 |
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 10,000 | Primorye Regional Court
04/07/2017 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. |
4,000 |
| 17. | 70456/17
07/09/2017 |
Mariya Aleksandrovna ZARUDNYAYA
1996 |
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow |
Demonstration against corruption
Volgograd 26/03/2017 |
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 10,000 | Volgograd Regional Court 11/05/2017 | Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention at the police station from 4 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. with no justification; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. |
4,000 |
| 18. | 70523/17
07/09/2017 |
Lyubov Aleksandrovna ZARUDNYAYA
1998 |
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow |
Demonstration against corruption
Volgograd 26/03/2017 |
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 10,000 | Volgograd Regional Court 10/05/2017 | Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention at the police station from 4 p.m. to 7.44 p.m. with no justification; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. |
4,000 |
| 19. | 71070/17
18/09/2017 |
Ravil Shamilevich SHIGAYEV
1997 |
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi |
Demonstration against corruption
Krasnodar 26/03/2017 |
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO | administrative detention of 10 days | Krasnodar Regional Court
06/04/2017 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention at the police station from 2.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. with no justification; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO; Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the first-instance court was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. |
5,000 |
| 20. | 71120/17
18/09/2017 |
Andrey Vladimirovich CHUPYSHEV
1991 |
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi |
Demonstration against corruption
Krasnodar 26/03/2017 |
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO | administrative detention of 15 days | Krasnodar Regional Court
06/04/2017 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – escorting to the police station at 6 p.m. on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO. |
5,000 |
| 21. | 73801/17
07/09/2017 |
Maksim Aleksandrovich NAZARENKO
1985 |
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow |
Demonstration against corruption
Volgograd 26/03/2017 |
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 10,000 | Volgograd Regional Court
26/04/2017 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – escorting to the police station at 4 p.m. on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record, detention in the police station from was detained from 4 p.m. to 7.15 p.m. without any justification; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. |
4,000 |
| 22. | 75249/17
19/10/2017 |
Mikhail Olegovich IZOTKIN
1996 |
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow |
Demonstration against corruption
Volgograd 26/03/2017 |
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 10,000 | Volgograd Regional Court 25/04/2017 | Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. | 3,500 |
| 23. | 75327/17
19/10/2017 |
Dmitriy Vladimirovich RUDNEV
1995 |
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow |
Demonstration against corruption
Volgograd 26/03/2017 |
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 10,000 | Volgograd Regional Court
25/04/2017 |
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. | 3,500 |
| 24. | 75523/17
19/10/2017 |
Kirill Yuryevich MELESHKO
1994 |
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow |
Demonstration against corruption
Volgograd 26/03/2017 |
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 10,000 | Volgograd Regional Court 26/04/2017 | Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. | 3,500 |
| 25. | 78273/17
03/11/2017 |
Igor Alekseyevich IVANOV
1992 |
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow |
Demonstration against corruption
Volgograd 26/03/2017 |
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 10,000 | Volgograd Regional Court
02/05/2017 (decision received on 15/05/2017) |
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. | 3,500 |
| 26. | 79125/17
01/11/2017 |
Maksim Anatolyevich FEDOROV
1968 |
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk |
Social march
Samara 23/04/2017 |
Article 20.2 § 3 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 30,000 | Samara Regional Court
22/06/2017 |
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 3 of CAO. | 3,500 |
| 27. | 83359/17
04/12/2017 |
Georgiy Aleksandrovich SPIRIN
1990 |
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow |
Demonstration against corruption
Gatchina 26/03/2017 |
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 5,000 | Leningrad Regional Court
05/06/2017 |
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. | 3,500 |
| 28. | 83408/17
07/12/2017 |
Dmitriy Yuryevich YURCHENKO
2000 |
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow |
Demonstration against corruption
Volgograd 26/03/2017 |
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 10,000 | Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd 07/06/2017
(appeal court because the applicant was a minor) |
3,500 | |
| 29. | 3954/18
27/12/2017 |
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich PROKOPENKO
1988 |
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg |
Demonstration against corruption
St Petersburg 26/03/2017 |
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 10,000 | St Petersburg City Court
30/06/2017 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention at the police station from 6.10 p.m. to 10.45 p.m. with no justification; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. |
4,000 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply